Maths > Abelian varieties > Polarisations, dual abelian varieties and the Weil pairing
Polarisable complex tori are projective
Posted by Martin Orr on Saturday, 26 March 2011 at 16:07
Last time, we defined polarisations on Hodge structures and saw that if 
is a complex abelian variety, then 
has a polarisation.
This time we will prove the converse: if 
is a complex torus such that 
has a polarisation,
then 
is an abelian variety (in other words, 
can be embedded in projective space).
The proof is based on studying invertible sheaves on 
.
This is long, even though I have left out all the messy calculations. For full details, see Mumford's Abelian Varieties or Birkenhake-Lange's Complex Abelian Varieties. For the next post, you will only need to know the two statements labelled as theorems.
This theorem is a special case of the Kodaira Embedding Theorem, which tells you that any compact complex manifold is projective if it has a polarisation, but that is somewhat more difficult.
Appell-Humbert Theorem
Let be a complex torus, and 
the quotient map.
The Appell-Humbert Theorem gives us a classification of all invertible sheaves on 
.
We can construct invertible sheaves on the quotient as follows:
Take a collection of holomorphic functions 
for 
.
For open subsets 
, define 
to be the set of holomorphic functions on 
satisfying

for 
and 
.
This gives an invertible sheaf on 
if the 
satisfy a certain cocycle condition.
Let be a Hermitian form on 
such that the symplectic form 
takes integer values on 
(in the language of previous posts, 
is a Hodge symplectic form).
Let 
be a function 
(here 
is the unit circle in 
)
satisfying

Such an 
is called a semi-character for 
.
Exercise: prove that there exists a semi-character for every 
.
Then set
The associated invertible sheaf is denoted 
.
Its global sections are holomorphic functions on all of satisfying 
;
such functions are called theta functions for 
.
We shall write 
for the vector space of theta functions.
By some boring calculations, we can prove the following:
Appell-Humbert Theorem. Every invertible sheaf on a complex torus is isomorphic to
for exactly one pairof a Hermitian formand a semi-character.
Furthermore, there is a group operation on the pairs by adding the 
s and multiplying the 
s, and this corresponds to tensor product of invertible sheaves.
Counting theta functions
We can count exactly the dimension of the space of theta functions for .
For our purposes it will suffice to do this whenever 
is positive definite
(it is only a little more complicated when 
is positive semidefinite,
and the dimension is 
if 
is not positive semidefinite).
Let .
If 
is nondegenerate (for example if 
is positive definite),
then 
is finite, and its order is always a square.
The Pfaffian of 
is defined to be 
.
Proposition. If
is positive definite, then.Sketch proof. We define classical theta functions to be theta functions as defined above, multiplied by a certain holomorphic function. The benefit of classical theta functions is that they are periodic modulo a certain rank-
sublattice of, so can be expanded as Fourier series. It is possible to write down a basis for the space of Fourier series of classical theta functions.
Projective embeddings
Recall that we can get a projective embedding of by taking a basis of the global sections of a very ample sheaf.
We shall show that if the Hermitian form 
is positive definite (in other words 
is a polarisation),
then 
is very ample for any semicharacter 
.
First we will need a lemma.
If , then I shall write 
for the map "translate by 
"; this could be a map 
or 
.
Lemma. If
is positive definite, then there is a divisorsuch thatfor all.Sketch proof. Suppose that
, and letbe the divisor of zeroes of. Some calculations show that iffor some, thentakes integer values on the lattice(which is strictly larger than) and thatis a theta function with respect to,and some semi-characteronextending.But the Pfaffian of
with respect tois smaller than its Pfaffian with respect to, so. Furthermore there are only finitely many possibleand, so the union of theseis not all of.
Now for the main theorem. Recall that to proof that a sheaf is very ample, we must prove that its linear system
- is base point free
- separates points
- separates tangents.
Theorem. If
is positive definite, thenis very ample.Sketch proof. Let
. Choose a divisoras in the lemma:andfor all. With a little more work we may also suppose thatis reduced i.e.is a codimension-1 submanifold of(with no multiplicities).The reason for using
is that if, thenfor every. In terms of divisors, this says thatis infor every. By varyingand, this gives us a lot of theta functions to play with.
Suppose that
is a base point for. Choosesuch that. Then for every, the fact thatis a base point givesSo at least one ofandis ini.e.But this cannot hold for everysincehas codimensionin.Suppose that
does not separate. By a more advanced version of the argument in 1, we conclude thatso by the lemma,.Suppose that
does not separate the tangent vectorat. We may suppose wlog that. More of the same style of argument tells us thatis everywhere tangent to the invariant vector field ongenerated by. It follows thatis fixed by the 1-parameter subgroup generated by, contradicting the lemma.






































It seems that tori can be defined over any base scheme

, and I guess there is a similar "Polarisable tori are projective" theorem there. How different in spirit is the proof of that case (assuming it is true) to the one sketched above? I am particularly interested in the case where
, for
a number field.Also, can

be projective without having a very ample sheaf on it?“Complex tori” (as I talk about here) are completely different from “tori over

”.Specifically, complex tori are

mod a lattice, which is topologically an
-torus (product of
circles). This is an analytic thing so I don’t think that it makes sense to generalise it to other base schemes (maybe
-adic fields). It is only once you have embedded your complex torus in projective space that it becomes an algebraic-geometry object (if it is polarisable of course).On the other hand, I guess that when you talk about “tori over

”, then you probably mean algebraic groups over
which become isomorphic to
over the algebraic closure (at least for
a field). These are completely different. The relation with topological tori comes from real points rather than complex points. They are affine schemes, so never projective.A projective scheme always has a very ample sheaf on it - this is built into the definition of very ample sheaf. Very ample sheaves are covered in II.5 and II.7 of Hartshorne and in any other similar book on algebraic geometry.
Martin, nice posts! I was wondering if you can tell me where the Galois representation associated to the Tate module of an abelian varieties of dimension

takes values.I suppose all the elements of the Galois group should preserve the alternating form giving the polarization, which over

becomes the classical sympletic form, so I would guess it should takes values in a group closely related to
.I think that the image of the representation right-translated by

(where
is the matrix of the alternating form over
) should be in
but I could not find any precise reference about this.As it is not so close to my interest, I don't want to spend too much time on it, but I still have this curiosity! Do you know anything about it?
Over

, I would just say that the Galois representation takes values in
since all non-degenerate symplectic forms are equivalent. (The Galois group does not quite preserve the symplectic form - it twists it by the cyclotomic character, hence why we get
and not
.)Over

, I think the correct statement is that there is a matrix
such that, if
is the standard alternating form and
the one coming from the polarization, thenThen the image of the representation will be contained in

conjugated by
.Thank you very much, Martin!
Sorry to bother you again, but now I have other questions: is it easy to see that the Galois representation twists the symplectic form by the cyclotomic character? and which is the determinant of this representation?
Thank you again.
I am not sure about how to calculate the action of the Galois representation on the symplectic form, but it is something I intend to cover later in this series of blog posts. At my current rate, it might be a few months before I get there.
The determinant is easier: if

is the symplectic form, then
generates
so the determinant of the representation is the
-th power of the character by which it acts on the symplectic form.